M/s. Pradeep Nanasaheb Desai (HUF), Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 7(2), Pune

ITA 1788/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2672 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: P S SHINGTE
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO. 1788 /P U N/201 8 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 4 - 1 5 M/S. PRADEEP NANASAHEB DESAI (HUF), WATER FRONT SOCIETY, BUILDING A, FLAT NO.801, KALYANINAGAR, YERWADA, PUNE 4110 06 . / APPELLANT PAN: A ANHP1360F VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WAD 7 ( 2 ), PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.S. SHINGTE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.K. VERMA / DATE OF HEARING : 0 6 . 0 3 .201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08 . 0 3 .201 9 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH E APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ORDER OF CIT (A) , PUNE - 5 , PUNE DATED 20 . 0 8 .201 8 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 4 - 1 5 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2), PUNE ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE ADDED BACK AN ITA NO. 1788 /P U N/201 8 PRADEEP NANASAHEB DESAI 2 AMOUNT OF RS.26,82,003/ - ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH IS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IN NOT ACCEPTING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND TRE ATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THE TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TREATED AS UN EXPLAINED. HOWEVER, IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 35,63,663/ - AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF VIDE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AFTER GETTING FIELD REPORT FROM THE INSPECTOR HAD ACCEPTED AGRICULTURAL INCOME BUT HAD ONLY DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES TO THE TUNE OF 5,12,480/ - IN THE ABSENCE OF VOUCHERS. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION HAD DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF 26,82,003/ - . THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT HAD FURNISHED VOUCHERS ISSUED BY ONE CONCERN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DEPUTED THE INSPECTOR TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES CARRI ED OUT ON THE SAID LAND. ON ENQUIRIES, THE INSPECTOR REPORTED THAT VEGETABLES AS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT GROWN ON THE LAND. REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAID RECEIPTS AS UNEXPLAINED AND MADE AN ITA NO. 1788 /P U N/201 8 PRADEEP NANASAHEB DESAI 3 ADDIT ION OF 26,82,003/ - . BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS POINTING OUT THAT IT OWNED DIFFERENT PIECES OF LAND ADMEASURING 14.52 HECTORS I.E. ABOUT 36.30 ACRES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT CROPS OF SUGARCANE, TOMATO, BEANS AND OT HERS WERE GROWN ON THE SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ALSO PRODUCED EVIDENCE OF SALE OF SUGARCANE AND OTHER CROPS. IN SUPPORT, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF 7/12 EXTRACT AND ALSO COPIES OF AGRICULTURAL BILLS AS WELL AS DETAILS OF INCOME / EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT . HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. BEFORE GOING INTO ANY OTHER EXPLANATION FILED BY ASSESSEE VIS - - VIS NATURE OF CROPS AND THE RECEIPTS FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES, WE MAY REFER TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE COPY OF SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PLACED ON RECORD AND AS AGAINS T AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16 OF 35,63,663/ - , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE FACTUM OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN AND THE AGRICULTURAL REVENUE EARNED THEREFROM BUT HAS ONLY DISALLOWED EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF 5,12,480/ - SINCE THE VOUCHERS TO THAT EXTENT WERE NOT TRACEABLE BY THE ASSESSEE AND COULD NOT BE PRODUCED. IN VIEW THEREOF, WHERE THE FACTUM OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN STANDS ACCEPTED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ON THE PREPONDERANCE OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES BEING UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON HIS LARGE LANDHOLDING OF ABOUT 36 ACRES STANDS ESTABLISHED. NOW, THE QUESTION IS THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY ASSESSEE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ITA NO. 1788 /P U N/201 8 PRADEEP NANASAHEB DESAI 4 AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF 20 LAKHS BE ACCEPTED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS THUS, PAR TLY ALLOWED. 8 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 8 TH DAY OF MARCH , 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / ACCOUNTANT ME MBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 8 TH MARCH , 201 9 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) , PUNE - 5, PUNE ; 4. THE PR. CIT , PUNE - 4, PUNE ; 5. 6. , , , - / DR SMC , ITAT, PUNE; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE